Back to Gulenko ...

Initially I didn't pay close enough attention to an important little fact that Gulenko explains in his article. When he uses the terms "deductive" and "inductive" he does it in a very special sense that is not the same as the meaining those terms have when we talk about deductive/inductive logic and reasoning. This is very important to keep in mind, so let's do that. My first instinct is to say that Gulenko should not have chosen those terms to describe the differences between the types in this context, but maybe there is a point to it that will be more clearly seen eventually, so I will not insist on it -- at least not yet.

But wait a minute ... First Gulenko says that he is going to use the terms in a non-standard way (the second sense he tries to explain), but later, when he is discussing how the polarity evolution/involution manifests itself at the intellectual level, he nevertheless is using them in the standard way (Gulenko's first sense) in this passage:

Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
Not excess it will note that the deductive thinking in society always had a priority before the inductive. To explain phenomenon, after building its noncontradictory deductive theory, was always considered the affair of the honor of researcher.
So, Gulenko is not consistent in his use of terms here, and that is unlucky, because it adds some irritating confusion to all this.